P.S. there is a logic problem, and probably a performances improvement using
++start instead of start++
function myBestTrim( str ){
var start = -1,
end = str.length;
while(str.charCodeAt(--end) < 33);
while(*++start* < end && str.charCodeAt(start) < 33);
return str.slice( start, end + 1 );
};
In your code start++ is obviously less than end since value === 0 for the
first case will be true only on right side, the charCodeAt
I know it was just a silly error and just one more boolean evaluation that
does not make that difference, but why do not fix it ;-)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ariel,
> I read now the myBestTrim function.
>
> You check charCodeAt less than 33, but in the precedent version you used
> these chars:
> chars = '
> \n\r\t\v\f\u00a0\u2000\u2001\u2002\u2003\u2004\u2005\u2006\u2007\u2008\u2009\u200a\u200b\u2028\u2029\u3000';
>
> I wonder which side effect could we have ignoring thos u2XXX characters,
> that as far as I know, are not included in range 0, 33 ... am I wrong?
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> P.S: I knew you'd be throwin' in your super revolutionary version of
>>> it.. so predictable :-P
>>
>>
>> :D
>>
>> mine was just a suggestion. Clever or recent browsers cast as constant the
>> regexp, but to be sure it happens everywhere, you can "force" in that way.
>>
>> My point is that I still cannot believe a runtime code works faster than a
>> regexp that should perform exactly the same in core. This could depend on
>> regexp engine, but we are still talking about compiled C against runtime
>> interpretated code (unless we are not under V8, TraceMonkey, or SquirrelFish
>> Extreme)
>>
>> In any case, I tested the same over this string: Array(1000).join(" test
>> ") and you are right, your performs in a reasonable time, while the RegExp,
>> casted or not, asks me to stop the script execution.
>> This is hilarius to me, and I can think about a regexp engine problem more
>> than a bad practice, so I guess your porposal makes sense enough, since it
>> is a must for big strings, a little bit slower for small strings.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
